Ancient Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times. This web site is my attempt to document, from my perspective, these "interesting times".

Friday, April 01, 2005

Framing is for idiots, Part 3

Ezra
Klein demonstrates that it is possible to criticize Lakoff in a specific
fashion and not come off sounding contemptuous of the entire concept of framing.

Geroge Lakoff -- I'm sorry to say -- is absolutely horrible at framing
things. No, I mean it, the guy is atrociously fucking bad at it.
He's a perfectly good guru because he understands what framing is and why
it's important and I'm glad that Democrats are realizing we need to put some
thought into our language, but Jesus Christ, has anybody actually read his
book? He's the worst goddamn framer I've ever read. Democrats should be the
nurturing parent? Are you kidding me?

It's a harsh assessment, but it is one that I am also coming to believe.
Lakoff is good at reading the X-Rays, but damn if I would go to him to get a
prescription for my headaches. He might recommend aromatherapy.

I was fortunate to have a brief conversation with a colleague of Lakoff's
just last weekend and she brought up many of the same criticisms of Lakoff that
Ezra details. She said that Lakoff set out with the best of intentions, to find
a metaphorical model of equal value to progressives as the Strict Father model
is to conservatives. But his Nuturant Parent model violates all of the cardinal
rules that Lakoff himself lays out. First of all, it appears to be nothing more
than a counter-model to the conservative model rather than a self-sufficient
model in its own right. But even worse, the Nurturant Parent model actually
validates one of the core conceits of the conservative model by being just
another variation of the "Nations Is Family" metaphor.

I'm tired of political models that treat citizens like children.

Rather, I think the progressive vision is more akin to the "It Takes a
Village" model. The well-being of The Village depends on the well-being of The
Individuals that comprise it, thus it is rational for The Village to nurture The
Individual so that The Individual can better contribute to the well being of The
Village. This is in contrast to the conservative model that says that The
Individual is responsible for their own well-being and that The Village will
benefit only when The Superior Individuals assume control of The Village. The
Lesser Individuals in The Village, in this model, are impediments to the overall
security of The Village because they impede the ability of The Superior
Individuals to protect The Village against The Savages In The Woods (how,
precisely, is usually left to the imagination). The progressive vision, on the
other hand, says that all Individuals can contribute to the protection of The
Village, but they can't do so so long as Predatory Individuals (who disguise
themselves as Superior Individuals) prey on their weaknesses.

For example, the Pentagon has fired Arabic interpreters because they just
happened to be gay. The conservative vision says that the presences of these
Lesser Individuals brought down the overall security of The Village (I guess
their gayness somehow leeches the strength from The Superior Individuals around
them). The progressive vision says that the security of The Village has been
weakened because the skills of these Individuals is no longer available to The
Village. Thus the issue of homosexual rights can be re-framed as an issue of
national security.

The "Nation as Village" model fulfills many of the same purposes as Lakoff's
"Nurturant Parent" model, yet it does not undermine itself by validating the
conservative "Strict Father" model.